SZQFS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 53

SZQFS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 53
S13/2012

1. The applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 18 May 2010.  A delegate of the first respondent refused the application on 19 November 2010 and this decision was subsequently affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").

2. The applicant is a Hindu and claimed to fear persecution from a Sikh student political party, the Khalistan Student Federation ("KSF"), who threatened to take his life.  The applicant claimed that the KSF have attempted, on several occasions, to eliminate the Hindu Sheve Sana Party ("HSSP") of which the applicant claimed to be a member, and he claims that in conjunction with issuing death threats the KSF have raided his house.

3. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was interested in studying in Australia and that he has some knowledge of the HSSP.  However, the Tribunal found that they could not accept the applicant's claims because they lacked credibility, particularly in light of the length of time spent by the applicant in Australia prior to seeking protection.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Refugee Convention.  The decision of the delegate of the first respondent not to grant a protection visa was affirmed.

4. The applicant applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for judicial review.  On 21 July 2011, Emmett FM found that the adverse credit findings were open to the Tribunal and that the applicant's claim of bias lacked foundation.  The application for judicial review was dismissed.

5. The applicant appealed against the decision of Emmett FM to the Federal Court of Australia.  On 3 November 2011, Flick J held that the applicant had failed to identify error on the part of the Federal Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.

6. The application for special leave to appeal, accompanying draft notice of appeal and applicant's written case, each filed on 9 January 2012, make general allegations of errors of law, jurisdictional error and breaches of procedural fairness.

7. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the Courts below and the applicant enjoys no prospect of success in this Court. Special leave is refused.

8. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the appeal.

W.M.C. Gummow
29 March 2012 S.M. Kiefel